Skip to main content
Sinisa Zec
Sinisa Zec
Known Participant
July 7, 2023
Question

The Impact of Generative AI Content on Adobe's Reviewing Process

  • July 7, 2023
  • 2 replies
  • 1372 views

Hey there! I wanted to share my feedback about the reviewing process on Adobe. Lately, it seems like submissions are taking a lot longer to be reviewed since they started accepting Generative AI Content. I'm a bit confused as to why they would opt for AI-created content, as it's causing a backlog in the reviewing system and negatively impacting creators who are uploading their original work. It's definitely not an ideal situation.

This topic has been closed for replies.

2 replies

Nancy OShea
Community Expert
Nancy OSheaCommunity Expert
Community Expert
July 7, 2023
quote

I'm a bit confused as to why they would opt for AI-created content...

By @Sinisa Zec

==========

Customers are #1. Contributors are #2.

 

Stock's business is providing customers with what they want -- a rich inventory of high quality commercial ready assets.   The vetting process takes time and varies by how many assets are in the wait queue.  Contributors get a rare opportunity to reach millions of potential buyers worldwide and receive royalties on what sells.  It doesn't matter if assets are approved this month or next month.  It all balances out in the end. 

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Nancy O'Shea— Product User & Community Expert
    Jill_C
    Community Expert
    Jill_CCommunity Expert
    Community Expert
    July 7, 2023

    Indeed, it is unfortunate that Adobe has combined AI and traditional illustrations into the same queue, causing both asset types to suffer from the huge backlog of AI assets awaiting review. Seems like they should be able to segregate these since AI Contributors have to tick the AI checkbox when they submit,.,

    Jill C., Forum Volunteer
      daniellei4510
      Community Expert
      daniellei4510Community Expert
      Community Expert
      July 8, 2023

      Hey, Jill...

      As a retired photographer (mobility issues, i.e., I've gotten lazy in my old age), 100% of my uploads are AI. I upload daily, but rarely more than 5-7 submissions at a time. The most is 20 if I'm feeling ambitious, since most of my AI images feature people, requiring some additional "paperwork." My rejection rate straddles between 0.06 to 0.08 on any given day.

      Anyway, you're probably right. People are flushing the system with AI, probably because it's so "easy.' But it's not. If you're an AI designer/prompter or whatever you want to call yourself, if you aren't spending at least 15 minutes to 2 hours editing your results, you're doing it wrong. And if you're spending over 2 hours, just ditch the thing and try something else.

      So yeah...don't backlog the queue just because your AI thumbnails looks great. Check the results carefully once they have been upscaled. Corner to corner, at 200% minimum. And I use the term "they" with some sense of caution. If the images look even somewhat similar to others, pick one or at most two if they differ from each other.

      Are you submitting images of people? Great. But make sure you run them through a facial restoration program first, to improve the eyes, nostrils, mouth and sometimes ears. Even then, are the irises round? Are the pupils round and centered within the irises? Are there catchlights in the eyes? Does one have two catchlights and the other just one? Are they both positioned in the same location within each eye? Oh, and facial restoration programs favor brown eyes only. So every now and then, change the eye color.

      And landscapes. Don't get me started on landscapes. They may look great at their original size, but upscaling will usually rip them apart. Grain. Noise. Chromatic aberations. They can all be improved upon with additional photoshop editing and verious AI applications, but take the time to use them (up to 2 hours...then remember the previous rule).

      And please. No more female robots with big bosoms. (And yes, I was guilty of that when I first started...a half dozen out of a half dozen were selected, but I'm done uploading more.)

      I'm rambling. Point is, there should NOT be an influx of AI if people if they were to start treating them like actual photographs. There are cropping issues to consider. Quality issues with respect to the same kinds of quality issues one might experience with an actual photograph). Compositional issues. Color balance issues. In other words, all the same issues one would deal with editing an actual photograph.

      AI users: SLOW DOWN.

      (End of rant.)

      Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.
        daniellei4510
        Community Expert
        daniellei4510Community Expert
        Community Expert
        July 29, 2023

        I was a professional photographer for 45 years (weddings, portraiture, fashion, fine art, figure/nudes, still life).  And I still take on a wedding now and then. I trained with some of the world's best known portrait and fashion photographers. I worked for 12 years each for two companies creating images and videos using Lightwave and Blender. I've paid my dues and now I'm involved in something new. You do you and I'll do me. 😉

        As far as waiting time is concerned, EVERYONE is waiting, including photographers and AI designers. Adobe is 100% behind generative AI and is working to assure that designers using the work of others to create images are compensated accordingly. 


        That came out wrong. Adobe wants to assure that the creators whose work is used by AI designers are compensated accordingly.

        Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.
          Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement
          Using the community Terms of use Privacy Cookie preferences Do not sell or share my personal information ad choicesAdChoices